daveleo
what?
The right of privacy, the right to create art, the right to record public activities and the need to protect innocents . . . . add up to Fascism ?
That is a seriously interesting viewpoint.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I can't say they aren't made - but would you be willing to shoot for a year with nothing but a 1200mm lens?
It's only suitable for special situations.
troym
Established
Here is a link to the judge's opinion in the case.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Interesting. So all a peeping tom has to do is call their activity art. :angel:
I wonder if he hadn't taken photos if he could claim it was an act of conceptual performance art.
troym
Established
That's not this case. I can't find the actual pleadings in the case, but it seems that the plaintiffs based their claims on NY's laws against commercial exploitation of a person's image. So, the decision isn't really about the peeping itself or even the taking of the photos.
Pablito
coco frío
judges making decisions on a case by case basis using a loosely worded law to define the rights you cite as they see fit is called fascism, censorship, etc... Been there done that...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
They said their child's face was visible in a photograph, said photograph was used to promote the show, at the show photographs were sold. It was a tenuous claim for "commercial" use which would have necessitated gaining their consent.
The judge basically said "it's art though so it's ok".
I can't say they're wrong in their assessment. But again IMO - that doesn't mean the photographer isn't a creep.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
How do you feel about mandatory sentencing then?
You keep calling him a creep, is this someone you know personally?
I hope not. I would not want to associate with somebody who literally sits in the shadows of their apartment taking photos of people without their knowing, through a long lens all day - and (maybe worst of all *plants tongue in cheek*) thinks that's art.
daveleo
what?
That is why we have courts !
So judges and juries can try and judge cases, based on the evidence under the governing laws, considering the rights of all people involved.
That is Fascism?
Too weird.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
It seems to me that the whole point of judges is to interpret the law. I would think that fascists would be the first to want rid of the judiciary, who place the law and rights of the common people above those of the government. Where we have seen the judiciary silenced or subverted, we have seen oppression, which brings censorship as its primary tool.
Although individual judges may be fools or worse, judges are, by and large, our champions.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
That is why we have courts !
So judges and juries can try and judge cases, based on the evidence under the governing laws, considering the rights of all people involved.
That is Fascism?
Too weird.
Anything you see from a public space in the US is fair game legally I would think. Now moral is a different and ever changing barometer but I think in the US the law is pretty clear.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
It seems to me that is something the US has got right. Here in the UK, where we lack a written constitution, our judiciary has gradually developed a similar approach, much influenced, I think, by the US example.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Where we run into, let's call them "issues," in the U.S. is when we have judges who get the idea in their heads that it is somehow their right to interpret the Constitution in light of the law rather than interpreting the law in light of the Constitution.
In doing so, they attempt to ignore Article VI, which subordinates the rulings of judges to the written Constitution:
Why do they do this? Ego. The majority of judges have forgotten their place in the scheme of things; like vast majority of politicians, judges dislike anything that limits their wielding of power. Not all, of course, but the majority.
In doing so, they attempt to ignore Article VI, which subordinates the rulings of judges to the written Constitution:
Why do they do this? Ego. The majority of judges have forgotten their place in the scheme of things; like vast majority of politicians, judges dislike anything that limits their wielding of power. Not all, of course, but the majority.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
moderator said:
True, but the written document transcends the debate. It's right there in black and white...
DougK
This space left blank
Seems like a very rational, well-considered judicial opinion to me.
TheFlyingCamera
Well-known
I'd have to do some research to understand the specifics of it, but I believe that there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the US. If I am on my front lawn doing something within public view, that activity is not considered private. If I am inside my fenced back yard, and it would require trespassing on my or my neighbor's property, then it is private. However, if I decide to sunbathe nude in my back yard, but my neighbor has a clear and unobstructed view of that activity, I think they are entitled to complain about it (what gets done about it would depend very much on the jurisdiction in which it happens). Likewise wandering around in my house naked is totally legal, but the question of if someone sees me, can they seek legal redress is conditional. Generally my understanding of the principle is that if it requires no effort on their part to observe the activity (I'm having sex in my living room in front of the picture window, curtains open, broad daylight, within easy view of the street) I'm in trouble, as I have not done anything to create privacy. Change the circumstances just a scoche by lowering the venetian blind, and my privacy has been invaded by someone reporting my activity to the law because it required effort on their part to observe my living room escapades. Obviously these folks in his photos did NOT create a reasonable expectation of privacy by even partially obscuring the view into their apartments. So I agree he's on solid legal footing, but ethically shaky ground.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I would think if you're several stories off the ground and (perhaps) hundreds of feet from the next building, you would expect that to be reasonably private. The only person who could see you is somebody who is going out of their way to see you. I certainly would not expect in such situations to be observed closely.
--
Well-known
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
The British legal system is a curious mixture of statute and common law, now admixed with European treaties and directives. Parliament creates more and more statutes, seldom throwing much away. In consequence, I believe, Britain has more laws than any two other countries.